Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater
← Tue, Jan 13 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at STL

Blues shut out the Hurricanes, 3-0

FinalTue, Jan 13
CARCarolina Hurricanes0STLSt. Louis Blues3
The verdict · stolen

The Blues stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.16–2.69 and won anyway.

CAR 0 · STL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:37 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

By the numbers that predict outcomes, the Hurricanes should have won. Carolina generated 3.16 expected goals to St. Louis' 2.69, a 54–46 split in their favor. Instead, they left with nothing and the Blues took a 3–0 shutout.

J. Hofer stole the game. The Blues goalie stopped all 33 shots (1.000 SV%) and saved 3.16 goals above expected—nearly the entire gap between the teams' underlying play. B. Bussi kept pace with 28 of 31 saves (0.903 SV%), but that wasn't enough to overcome Carolina's offensive drought.

The Blues won through efficiency and transition. They held 48% of shot attempts (31–33 on goal) but generated far deadlier looks—0.058 expected goals per shot versus Carolina's 0.039. St. Louis converted 3 of 23 rush chances into goals. Carolina generated chances at the net, created 4 rebound opportunities, and scored zero.

Jimmy Snuggerud's wrist shot from the high slot (12:49, second period) opened the scoring and proved the turning point. Three assists spread across #72 J. Faulk (21:17), #75 T. Tucker (18:25), and #10 B. Schenn (17:42) showed depth beyond the goal scorers.

Carolina dominated the underlying play. The Hurricanes' chances were legitimate and their structure sound. But the Blues converted theirs, Hofer stopped everything, and that's the 3–0 result.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 13
CAR
0
STL
3

Blues shut out the Hurricanes, 3-0

Chances 3.2 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
3.16
STL
2.69
54% of the chances46%

The board read CAR 0, STL 3. The chances read CAR 3.2, STL 2.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
+0.3
goals above expected
STL2.69 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR3.16 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Hurricanes left 3.2 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 03:09STLN. BjugstadSH0–1
  2. P2 09:45STLD. Dvorsky0–2
  3. P2 12:49STLJ. SnuggerudPP0–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
57 shots
0
Final
95 shots
STL
38 shots
3
CAR attackSTL attack
CAR STL Goal
57
shots · 0 in
38
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARSTL
0 / 4
0.91 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.48 xG
0 / 12
1.26 xG
Medium
1 / 15
1.77 xG
0 / 64
0.98 xG
Low
1 / 29
0.44 xG

The Hurricanes went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Hofer
+3.2
STL · 33/33
D
B. Bussi
−0.3
CAR · 28/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues shut out the Hurricanes, 3-0

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 9–7no goals
    2ndshots 11–14
    1. 03:09STLN. Bjugstadshorthanded(O. Stenberg, J. Faulk)0–1
    2. 09:45STLD. Dvorsky(J. Neighbours, T. Tucker)0–2
    3. 12:49STLJ. Snuggerudpower play(J. Kyrou, B. Schenn)0–3
    3rdshots 13–10no goals

      score reads CAR–STL

      Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
      Process vs result

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      2.69
      STL chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      +0.3
      Finishing
      Goals above what those chances were worth
      1.065
      STL puck luck
      Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
      36.5%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      3.16Expected goals2.69
      CAR 54% of the chance quality
      33Shots on goal31
      4High-danger chances2
      80All attempts (Corsi)46
      Adjusted for score: CAR 68% · STL 32%
      Faceoffs · STL won35%off56%neu58%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      CAR0 / 4 · 0.91 xG
      STL1 / 2 · 0.48 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      CAR0 / 12 · 1.26 xG
      STL1 / 15 · 1.77 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      CAR0 / 64 · 0.98 xG
      STL1 / 29 · 0.44 xG

      CAR went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.26 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

      Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
      The luck layer

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      CAR
      0 G · 3.16 xG · -3.2
      STL
      3 G · 2.69 xG · +0.3
      01234

      CAR finished -3.2 against expected, STL +0.3.

      Source · Backcheck xG model
      Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
      What they shot — and what went in

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      CAR
      WRIST0/38
      BACKHAND0/4
      SLAP0/7
      TIP IN0/3
      SNAP0/4
      DEFLECTED0/1
      OTHER0/23
      STL
      WRIST2/26
      BACKHAND0/5
      SLAP0/1
      TIP IN0/4
      SNAP1/2
      DEFLECTED0/0
      OTHER0/8
      CAR
      STL
      Off the rush
      0 G on 26
      1.58 xG
      3 G on 23
      1.96 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 4
      0.77 xG
      0 G on 2
      0.30 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 0-for-38, STL 2-for-26. STL scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

      Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
      New to these numbers?

      Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

      The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

      xG
      Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
      HD
      High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
      Corsi
      Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
      Adj.
      Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
      GSAx
      Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
      PDO
      Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
      Shot by shot

      In the net

      Graded on goals saved above expected
      B. Bussi
      CAR · 28/31 · .903
      -0.3
      saved above expected
      D
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/20.5-0.5
      Medium1/151.8+0.8
      Low1/290.4-0.6

      A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

      J. Hofer
      STL · 33/33 · 1.000
      +3.2
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/40.9+0.9
      Medium0/121.3+1.3
      Low0/641.0+1.0

      A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

      95 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      CAR
      57 shots
      0
      Final
      95 shots
      STL
      38 shots
      3
      CAR attackSTL attack
      CAR STL Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, STL right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

      Ranked from the box score

      Three stars

      Points first
      Three stars · computed, not voted
      J. Faulk
      #72 · D · STL
      0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:17 on ice · +2
      T. Tucker
      #75 · D · STL
      0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 18:25 on ice · +2
      B. Schenn
      #10 · C · STL
      0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 17:42 on ice
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Tue, Jan 13
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:36 AMEdited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

      The model projects this as a near-pick'em: a 2.7–2.4 Hurricanes edge with Carolina favored at 54% win probability. The underlying metrics explain why it's so tight.

      Carolina dominates the underlying play. The Hurricanes' 56.0% 5v5 expected goals share and 60.0% Corsi rate tower over St. Louis's 49.0% xG% and 48.0% Corsi—a territorial advantage that should drive chances. But luck complicates the picture.

      The Hurricanes are running cold at 0.984 PDO. That's actually the good-news scenario: teams regress toward 1.000, so Carolina's luck improves by definition. St. Louis sits at 1.000, the inverse problem—the Blues have nowhere to go but down.

      St. Louis is underwater at minus-10 in goal differential over their last 10 games. Combined with the coming PDO regression, the Blues face a tightening margin.

      The game's edge comes down to scoring touch. Jackson Blake is the Hurricanes' xG engine at 1.06 per 60 minutes, with 14 goals, 19 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and a 10.9% shooting rate. Seth Jarvis runs 0.98 xG/60 with 17 goals, 12 assists, 1 high-danger goal, and 11.9% shooting. Together they're Carolina's primary threat.

      St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud at 0.86 xG/60, posting 15 goals, 22 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and an 11.9% shooting rate. Dylan Holloway generates 0.82 xG/60 with 13 goals, 24 assists, 1 high-danger goal, and 10.8% shooting.

      Carolina's underlying play and coming luck improvement edge St. Louis's current efficiency. The model's split reflects exactly how thin that margin is.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      CAR 54%
      54%
      CAR
      Model favorite
      54%
      46%
      CAR50STL

      CAR by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.7–2.4 STL; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

      Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
      Season rates · 5v5

      Tale of the tape

      NHL stats API · our xG
      CAR← edge
      edge →STL
      56.0%49.0%
      60.0%48.0%
      2.982.34
      2.312.40
      2.262.00
      1.952.12
      0.9841.000

      CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.000) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      CAR
      6-4-0
      +2 GD · 2d rest
      STL
      4-6-0
      -10 GD · 2d rest
      0.984
      CAR PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.000
      STL PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Where the edges live
      • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
      • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      Regression watch
      • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Things to watch
      • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
      • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • The Blues are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
      • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      CAR
      Expected in goal
      B. Bussi
      2 days rest.833 last start
      Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 GSAx this season

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      STL
      Expected in goal
      J. Binnington
      2 days rest.875 last start
      Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 GSAx this season

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

      Computed danger · scouting

      Players to watch

      NHL stats API · our xG
      CAR
      Jackson Blake14G 19A
      1.06 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.9% sh
      Seth Jarvis17G 12A
      0.98 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.9% sh
      STL
      Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
      0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
      Dylan Holloway13G 24A
      0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page